1. The 15th Amdt is rather plain ENGLISH and has ZERO to do with gerrymander districts.

   i.e. NEGATIVE language regarding who can be an Elector.

   Thus much of the 1965 VRA is blatantly unconstitional on its face.

   Much too difficult for the SCOTUS morons to understand.

2. These two claim it “violates” Voting Rights Act to draw plans that do not favor any particular incumbent, and/or political party??

   There must be an incumbent protection clause hidden in there somewhere.

3. Wow, that is crazy. It is amazing what they will do to try to grab power.

4. #3 Jordon Greene [Constitution];

   What do you think MP Winger [Libertarian], MP Perry [Boston Tea] and MP Greene [Constitution] are trying to do, but to “grab power”?

   You three are males who do not understand how to fully implement 1/100ths of the votes to elect one of the 100 seats. (technically, that’s 1/101ths or .99% plus one vote each).

   You are vested in keeping things the same. I don’t know, is it keep things the same, or some other plan?

   You look at The USA Parliament, Inc.’s web page, and you’ll see links to Winger’s and Perry’s web pages on that page’s index page over the past say…five to fifteen years. Greene too, was a subscriber to the information, until he publicly embarrassed me by sending the message “unsubscribe” to all the members…
   (It wasn’t a severe embarrassment, just a curious one at the most.)

   Now you also look at the links to Google ads.

   Note that there is no reciprocal link to The USA Parliament, Inc.’s web page. And there is no call for opposite gender #1.

   Google derived from my name, mind you. And I can happily provide you with three names as witnesses that can be easily contacted that will confirm that fact.
   You links to Google appear more important than a link to the 100-member team, a proportionate parliament with votes cast as proof in a voter registration drive?

   Your actions are self-defeating to the good of the all. I’m too, am just trying to figure this out like you three. I’m sure you can write me off as a conceited nut. Regardless of that, I like this idea of stacks of ballots as forming a tool on which to coordinate the “approach to the two-party bunker on Normandy Beach”.

   For example, when Winger was live on C-SPAN, he danced all around promoting his own work, his own opinion, his own web page, and C-SPAN was able to sell commercials, and in the end they both achieved their own selfish self promotion. He actually touched on many aspects similar to what we do, the Boston Tea Party…proportional representation…but on a person to person level with me, he has no idea what 100 elected names, elected and nominated (i.e. fair ballot access) has been accomplishing or trying to accomplish without much help from him (or anyone for that matter).

   While his C-SPAN interview was some great accomplishment to him, it was a total opportunity lost to the team on Normandy Beach…The USA Parliament, Inc.

   The result was there is no advancement of the team.

   The result was that year after year, we can see who not to depend on. The non-team players.

   While we’re on Normandy Beach, you three are pretty much like the three stooges, as a group we are all the comedy of errors, most are not dependable when it comes to “shooting your rounds” (ranking the ballots, and acting on the results…using the team to make decisions as a group.)

   We’re all being decimated, while you three aren’t coordinating to the extent that you could and should.

   All we ask is for voting within the system, to elect more team players who are coordinating with a clear plan. A PR parliament with rules and 100 seats. The parliament’s rules and number of seats can be improved through the same teamwork I’m writing about.

   I write this, not as an insult to you, but simply to explain the situation. The situation is, there is no ballot access problem within The USA Parliament, Inc. The problem is finding good team players.

   Do you think Google is your best team payer?

   You probably don’t know about the current coalition between the Constitution, Libertarian and Boston Tea Parties, maybe that’s why you ignore it. You know, to ask people to vote for the opposite gender #1, your name #2? Either that, or you’re just not good team players.

   I find it rather difficult typing this opinion, but counting the cast ballots, and distributing 100 seats in a parliamentary board is so much easier and mathematically dry than finding good team players.

   Maybe you’ll write …well ranking names with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one in a 100-member at-large district isn’t a good idea…a better idea is …”[…..]”. I know what the answer you will write is; “I’m really not interested…I don’t really understand…hey at least I take advantage of my spot on this platform.

   What do you say, what’s your response?

5. I think the Florida initiatives also may violate Article I of the Constitution, which delegates to the Legislature the regulation of congressional elections. A good argument can be made that a state constitution cannot constrain the Legislature in this regard. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore (2000); Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000). Although both of these cases dealt with Article II, the same arguments apply.

6. # 5 See the SCOTUS cases upholding the initiative stuff by the PEOPLE-Electors in Oregon.

   PEOPLE-Electors >>>>>> mere party hacks (i.e. gerrymander monarchs) in mere State Legislatures.

   Democracy NOW — to end the EVIL rule of the gerrymander party hacks in the EVIL U.S.A. and State gerrymander regimes.

   P.R. and App.V. NOW — not in a zillion years.

7. The USA Parliament, Inc. is moving ahead
   fast, without the help of MP Winger [Libertarian],
   MP Perry [Boston Tea] and Greene [Constitution].

   We’re getting ready for the 2011 Central
   California Mini-state Parliament Election.

   To catch up on today’s bulletin, see the
   post entitled “GoNott Search Team – November 9, 2010”
   in the top post of the forum;

   http://www.usparliament.org/forum/

   “Join the Frees,
   opposite gender #1”

   …and they won’t do this
   in single winner districts,
   those egotist single winner
   district party hacks!

   “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

8. I’m glad to be put in with Winger, that is actually an honor in my opinion. My questions, is what exactly is the US Parliament doing in real life? It elects this group of people, to act as some sort of internet group as a mock election or parliament is all I see.

   Winger and I are working for real legal change in the laws the fundementally effect the voting rights of individual citizens. Currently I’m working on forming a coalition with my organization Free the Vote NC comprised of as many political parties and organizations that will join us (more information available once the details are finalized), so in saying things like “You are vested in keeping things the same. I don’t know, is it keep things the same, or some other plan?” or “We’re all being decimated, while you three aren’t coordinating to the extent that you could and should.” or “I write this, not as an insult to you, but simply to explain the situation.” you are making completely unfounded statements.

9. #5 One of the initiatives applies to the legislative districts, the other to congressional districts. You aren’t claiming that the one that applies to legislative districts, is barred under Article I?

   The lawsuit does make a claim under Article I, in addition with that under the VRA. The claim under the VRA is that minority voters are entitled to re-elect incumbents because of their legislative influence and leadership. Perhaps next they will claim the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

   Bush v Gore was not decided on Article II grounds, though there was a 3-justice concurrence that actions by the Florida Supreme Court was in violation of Article II, and the dissents generally agreed that the Florida Supreme Court was properly exercising its authority to interpret Florida laws, including those that direct the manner by which Florida presidential electors were appointed.

   I think you are into a whole different set of issues when it comes to how a State apportions the legislative authority among the People through the referendum and initiative, the legislature per se, the executive branch, including the veto power, and the judicial branch.

   May the People of State, such as Ohio, veto a congressional redistricting plan through their referendum power?

10. #9. The Article I challenge would only apply to congressional districts and not state legislative districts. You ask whether the veto process can be used consistent with Article I. The answer supplied by State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrandt (1916) is that it can. Both gubernatorial and popular vetoes are part of, the Supreme Court there said, the legislative process. But this is a far cry from holding that the governor or people can initiate (on the front end) the districting without legislative approval. I think Baldwin v. Trowbridge (1866), a decision from the House of Representatives regarding the qualifications of a candidate, clearly holds it does not. Thus, I think a good argument can be made that the initiative process cannot be used to constrain what the Legislature does with districting. At most, the initiative can be used as a veto of what the legislature does.

11. Jordon, thank you for your response…I’ve often asked the question “What’s the Internet good for?”, because so many people use it to benefit their cause.

    The USA Parliament, Inc. is a 100-member team founded on Usenet when the Environmentalist Party elected its first BoD in 1995.

    Imagine if the Constitution Party was on a 100-member national team, with 100-member super-state parliaments where states and groups of states are grouped together for twelve population balanced districts.

    That’s what the Environmentalist Party is, and that’s how they elect their BoD and register new members.

    Every year, the EP gets about 1 to 3% of the votes in the elections, which are timed with the US Constitution, presidential elections every four years.

    We are in competition with the Green Party, because we are way ahead of them in organizing population balanced mini-states and super-states, and also because they (nor do any other party that I’m aware of) do not work with all parties as a team.

    Our rules are highly developed. For example, I am registered with the state as Free and Equal Party, but in the Parliament I can proclaim to be any party/category, so I am Free Parliamentary Party there.

    The rules were written by many people and all the rules were voted on, using ranked voting #1, #2, etc., so our rules have been able to be highly advanced since they’re not written by one person.

    The ranking system works with both election and decisions. So when I flame you (that means to criticize you), I am doing it to show my dissatisfaction that you are not moving towards working as a coordinated team.

    You are doing good work in legal areas, but national politics is like a large battlefield, where many small skirmishes occur all over the place.

    I can mathematically prove that a large team working under ranked voting will be more coordinated than teams not using t6his. And I am working with the Constitution Party, MP Don Grandmann [Constitution] for US Senate (CA), and others.

    This is a way to coordinate and use the Internet.

    MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] is one of our 100 members on the national level, he sometimes votes for the executives. He is a good person and a friend. However, I am critical of him too, as far as working as a team with the Environmentalist Party, Free Parliamentary, etc…he allows me to criticize him here. But I am not focused on one person, I am trying to work with a larger army of 100, and all the subsidiary super-states and mini-states.

    The key is we use stacks of ballots cast as proof, which also double as a voter registration drive for all parties and indpendents, on the federal voter registration form.

    For example, in Monterey County where the Environmentalist Party started in 1983, there is a Constitution man who ran for Governor in 1994 when I ran for Governor, named Jerome McCready [American Indpenedent]. He is a good man, and a friend. But MP Winger’s Libertarian party never recognized the Environmentalist Party, even though we often get 1% of the votes. I’ve tried and tried to work with them…MSP Kevin Takenaga [Libertarian], MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian], their various elected chairman… but they don’t give us the time of day. Under our system, we guarantee the top ranked male, and top ranked female (or visa versa) as chair/vice chair…plus hundreds of consecutively ranked back-ups, as long as 2/3rds of the voters rank consecutively ranked genders.

    The Libertarian Party and Richard Winger don’t do that. They have one chairman, and no possibility of having a team of two. So although he is sometimes of great help in legal matters, he is not very sharp in all areas, especially working as a team with gender balance, and the Environmentalist Party.

    Communication is a key, and we need to keep improving that area, to work as the All Party Team, that exists as The USA Parliament, Inc., stacks of cast ballots on paper and online which are printed on paper too.

    A key ingredient in the battle is timing. The USA Parliament, Inc. creates a schedule that peaks on July 4th, and ends on August 5th when the votes are counted every year. Then the final 90 days before the “real” elections, we are electing Prime Ministers and doing thing timed very well, while those who don’t coordinate are not effective as a team. They are more reactionaries, reacting to the situation the state gives them. Those coordinating with the USA-PAR
    are able to plan strategy much better when we are the initiators.

    Hope you like it. If you decide to coordinate as a team with The USA Parliament, Inc. we welcome you. Had you remained on the email list, you’d see we have some very prominent people like MSP Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], MSP Markham Robinson [American Independent] and other subscribed. They have been driven apart by certain ballot access laws, while the parliament is helping them coordinate more.

    But remember, we are not coordinating under single winner districts, we are coordinating under 100-member districts. It’s egotists working to win single winner districts, and the team is coordinating under 100 member districts. Two differing philosophies at work, hence the friction sometimes. Hope you like it OK.

12. I understand the enthusiasm for the national, but I believe in fixing the local and state problems first and then working our way up from there except where opportunities present themselves. It allows us to better focus on our goal. I’d rather not be involved in the US Parliament, as I still see little real purpose for it, and note that this does not mean in the least that I’m for “grabbing power” or and “egotist” but that I believe a little bit differently than you do, which you should be able to accept and understand instead of attacking people.

13. #4: Since when do you require gender balance in the “USA Parliament”? At least four of the “parties” with multiple “members” in the “Parliament” are “represented” only by males or only by females.

14. #9, #10 There is about 30 party hack control in all of the regular gerrymander legislative bodies.

    – the *average* winner gets about 60-62 percent of the votes in HIS/HER rigged gerrymander district — i.e. about 38-40 percent of the voters elect NO body to a gerrymander legislative body — sometimes for decades or even a lifetime.

    — a bare majority of the winners in a bare majority of the gerrymander districts = about 30-31 percent indirect ANTI-Democracy minority rule — full of extremist party hack robots — Donkey left or Elephant right.

    P.R. and App.V. – before it is too late.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.